Pure communism or Pure capitalism??

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Yes, this is why I have stated that it is the governments role to protect property rights and to enforce the law and provide a court system. Taxes are essential to provide these things. However, that doesn't change the fact that the house that you built belongs to you. If someone attempts to steal it, or even does steal it, it does not mean that they have the rights to it.

Vuurk

Taxes do not equal redistribution....

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Yes, this is why I have stated that it is the governments role to protect property rights and to enforce the law and provide a court system. Taxes are essential to provide these things. However, that doesn't change the fact that the house that you built belongs to you. If someone attempts to steal it, or even does steal it, it does not mean that they have the rights to it.

Vuurk

Taxes do not equal redistribution....

Interesting topic. I don't really know. I know I certainly wouldn't work as hard in a pure communist state, and in a pure capitalist state I'd probably be more successful. The problem I have with a capitalist state is how many people are taken advantage of and manipulated, and the society it creates is dispicable. A communist society is no better, but if this is a perfect communist society, then everybody is doing their work, everyone believes in the system and doing their job willingly.

A perfect capitalist state is easy to make, but it yeilds a society of self interest and greed. A perfect communist society is impossible, but the society would have faith in their duties and the laws. Frankly, this isn't possible. I'd rather live in the Capitalist society because I'm sure I'd do better than I would in the communist one (I'm above the 50%!), but the perfect communist society would lead to a better world. Unfortunately, people are selfish to a degree, and that is not possible.

Taxes are not a redistribution of wealth. The safety net programs that are funded by taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Taxes are suppose to fund public goods like roads, schools, dams etc. for all people equally. Nonstop-Madness

Taxes are not a redistribution of wealth. The safety net programs that are funded by taxes are a redistribution of wealth. Taxes are suppose to fund public goods like roads, schools, dams etc. for all people equally. Nonstop-Madness

Neither sound pleasent but I'd prefer pure capitalism.

To think that capitalism is what has stunted progress is insanity. Free market capitalism is what has given the United States, Japan, and other nations the greatest technological growth in the world.

The only reason professional football players are making an extremely high amount of money is because so many people are willing to pay to see it. If you are not happy with the fact that they make so much money, then stop paying to watch their games and buy their apparel. Also, to think that they don't contribute to society is ridiculous. Life is not only about technological advancements and progress. It is also about culture, entertainment, and enjoyment. Sports provide these things.

These professional football players have a very unique and specialized ability which creates create demand and very low supply. This is the reason why they are paid so much. Teachers are not very specialized (at least at the elementary through high school level) and they are very abundant. This is why they are paid very little.

The helium should go to whoever is willing to pay more money for it. In the end supply and demand is very good at creating the maximum efficiency. You can thank the beauty of supply and demand for the great amount of technological and scientific advancements that we have to do. In a communist society where we allocated goods based on what a given individual believed was most important, that system would be incredibly inefficient and counter-productive. There society would have a much lower standard of living.

You can have a communist society but everyone in that society is going to be poor...

Vuurk

And you're rather insulting, acting like I'm too stupid to get 'it', I know why footballers make money, I just don't care about them.

Science doesn't make money, it's not tied to the market, not profitable. How does science pay for things? They ask for $. They can't 'just' buy Helium, it's finite and expensive. And, when you release it from balloons, you lose it! It's so pointless, it escapes our atmosphere when it's released into it, the only reason we have helium is from radioactive decay, is often found with natural gas deposits.

---

"However, taxes that go toward national defense, or the law enforcement are not redistributing wealth."

What kind of moronic mumbo-jumbo is this? That's still redistributing it. Those are other people who are being payed with SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Yes? point? I stand by that statement. Not sure of your point...

Taxes do not equal redistribution....

Vuurk

What a prick "you're too stupid to understand".

Capitalism does not create greed or self interest. That is something of human nature. Also, the work of Adam Smith and the idea of the invisible hand and individuals pursuing their own self interests shows that all of society benefits (most of the time) when people do that.

We didn't get the great technological advancements that we have today because people were feeling benevolent. Steve Jobs didn't invent his apple products in order to help society. He invented them to create a profit. We just benefited as a consequence of him pursing this self-interest and profit. We get the amazing technology (cars, internet, modern medicine, etc etc.), and the producers get profit. Everyone is better off.

Yet people would rather just complain about the state of things rather than stepping back and realizing that we have it better now than any human before us in history! (in terms of technology and standard of living). That is something to be very thankful for.

Vuurk

"We didn't get the great technological advancements that we have today because people were feeling benevolent."

Denis Ritchie didn't apply a license fee for the C++ language (which he developed), the language that Apple's OS is based off of and would have been nothing without. We make plenty of advancements w/o the incentive of profit, it's the joy of research and discovery that drives many scientists.

Both are awful crap, that I wouldn't want to live in.. Neither work, extremes in either direction will lead to bad things happening.. Hence why the most developed nations in the world have a healty balance of federal regulation and capitalistic private markets.. If we went one way or the other it would not follow the Nash Equilibrium what so ever.

To this day no country has followed Marxist's values and standards to the point they have all started with that intention but then veer off terribly, USSR is a fine example of communism gone bad when greedy men are given power.

A pure Communism following Marxism to the exact point is essentially Utopia since everyone is equal and the harder you work the more society would reward you while still keeping everything equal.

I'd rather live in a pure communism than a pure capitalism since in a pure communist society people would never act on greed and selfish thoughts while i cant say that about a capitalist one.

This is all hypothetical of course since a pure communist country and society will never be achieved aslong as people act on greed and are selfish but a pure communist society is the blue print for perfect Utopia.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Certain taxes. The tax dollars that go toward welfare, unemployment insurance, foodstamps, medicaid, etc. However, taxes that go toward national defense, or the law enforcement are not redistributing wealth. That is providing a service that a private entity isn't capable of providing. It is a social contract that we sign. In order to ensure the enforcement of property rights, a legal system, and national defense, we pay taxes. This is not a redistribution of wealth. When my taxes go toward the legal system, myself and all other citizens are benefiting from having a law system to maintain order. Vuurk

We have a disagreement on what the role of government is. I believe the role of government (and consequently what our tax dollars should go toward) is to provide law enforcement, the protection of property rights, and national defense.

You seem to think the role of government is to insure the existence of any given individual by providing them with the necessities to survive.

I would also be in support of the government providing those things if it wasn't for the fact that the world is scarce, government is inefficient, and that the only way the government can make money is by taking it from someone who is productive. I do not believe that the productive members of society should need to compensate the unproductive members of society. It is irrational imo. Everything is based on productivity. The government doesn't create medicine, health care, food, and shelter out of thin air...

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Certain taxes. The tax dollars that go toward welfare, unemployment insurance, foodstamps, medicaid, etc. However, taxes that go toward national defense, or the law enforcement are not redistributing wealth. That is providing a service that a private entity isn't capable of providing. It is a social contract that we sign. In order to ensure the enforcement of property rights, a legal system, and national defense, we pay taxes. This is not a redistribution of wealth. When my taxes go toward the legal system, myself and all other citizens are benefiting from having a law system to maintain order. Vuurk

First of all population growth is not exponential and is predicted to level off by about mid century.

How about the people who have been working for all their life that have just been laid off because the "most productive" members of society made record profits by destroying the world's economy? They have been productive people their entire life, now because of the top people taking irrational risk they have no means of income, without those programs they would be without housing, food and healthcare. Once the economy recovers you benefit from having all of those people returning to work..

Do you believe that people who work at walmart for example are productive? Without them walmart would not be able to function, but most walmart employees are on some kind of government program because their pay/benefits are so low....what should be done about people like these?

To this day no country has followed Marxist's values and standards to the point they have all started with that intention but then veer off terribly, USSR is a fine example of communism gone bad when greedy men are given power.

A pure Communism following Marxism to the exact point is essentially Utopia since everyone is equal and the harder you work the more society would reward you while still keeping everything equal.

I'd rather live in a pure communism than a pure capitalism since in a pure communist society people would never act on greed and selfish thoughts while i cant say that about a capitalist one.

This is all hypothetical of course since a pure communist country and society will never be achieved aslong as people act on greed and are selfish but a pure communist society is the blue print for perfect Utopia.

sonofsmeagle

No country has followed the absolute tenents of either one because they are not feasible.. One is all about collective common good with limited resources with corrupt and human greed always ruining it.. The other is allowing the said corruption and greed to lead to a dwarin-esque society in which a select few control the majority and control the rest more or less.. Not much different from what we saw in the fuedal age..

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Pure capitalism, just as evolution kill off the weak so that the strong can build a better future.

Communist_Soul

You either adapt, over come them, or die. If they had the most resources they clearly were better then the rest.

I reject the notion communism can work at all.

Pure capitalism.

[QUOTE="Xx_Socrates_xX"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

In communism, you are guaranteed a decent standard of living with your quality in life moving up as the society progresses as a whole.

BossPerson

That's funny.

Reminds me of the robber baron days of child factory workers.

They have no reason not to.RushKing

Um, they have the government preventing them from doing so?

[QUOTE="RushKing"]They have no reason not to.airshocker

Um, they have the government preventing them from doing so?

Free marketRushKing

Again, what does the FREE MARKET have to do with government? Government still exists under a free market.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Free marketairshocker

Again, what does the FREE MARKET have to do with government? Government still exists under a free market.

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

Interesting topic. I don't really know. I know I certainly wouldn't work as hard in a pure communist state, and in a pure capitalist state I'd probably be more successful. The problem I have with a capitalist state is how many people are taken advantage of and manipulated, and the society it creates is dispicable. A communist society is no better, but if this is a perfect communist society, then everybody is doing their work, everyone believes in the system and doing their job willingly.

A perfect capitalist state is easy to make, but it yeilds a society of self interest and greed. A perfect communist society is impossible, but the society would have faith in their duties and the laws. Frankly, this isn't possible. I'd rather live in the Capitalist society because I'm sure I'd do better than I would in the communist one (I'm above the 50%!), but the perfect communist society would lead to a better world. Unfortunately, people are selfish to a degree, and that is not possible.

Vuurk

We didn't get the great technological advancements that we have today because people were feeling benevolent. Steve Jobs didn't invent his apple products in order to help society. He invented them to create a profit. We just benefited as a consequence of him pursing this self-interest and profit. We get the amazing technology (cars, internet, modern medicine, etc etc.), and the producers get profit. Everyone is better off.

Yet people would rather just complain about the state of things rather than stepping back and realizing that we have it better now than any human before us in history! (in terms of technology and standard of living). That is something to be very thankful for.

I don't think I completely agree with you. In Japan, after the Tsunami, the north said that they would sacrifice their electricity during day hours to help the south recover. Don't think that would happen here, and that's because the culture here is different than there. If society decides that selfishness is natural, it will be a part of the society. If it condems it, it will be a lesser part of it. Jobs wanted to create something, and he wanted to be the best at it. I didn't read his biography, but I genuinely think that he did what he did because he wanted to create something that society could use for something. I know his salary for the last few years was a penny.

I know what the purpose of capitalism is, and that's definitely the good part of it. Its reason to love it, and neither answer is wrong. I think it leads to a more selfish society, but at least its realistic. Pure true communism is not.

Pure capitalismchessmaster1989

Authority has nothing to do with the discussion because it all comes down to the means of production. Utopian capitalist and communist states as suggested by BossPerson would both pretty much abolish all kind of government as we know it. In a utopian capitalist state, the means of production would be in private hands and, ideally, private companies would take care of everything that the government does now, including, the police and armed forces. In a utopian communist state, the means of production would be owned by those who work there and the government would be unnecessary because each community would resolve all their issues through some form of popular assemblies.

"In communism, you are guaranteed a decent standard of living but no chance to move forward."

So you have absolutely no understanding of what communists aims to achieve?

Socijalisticka

Judging by the vague, messy, and contradictory efforts of existing [not] communist regimes, absolutely not.

Authority has nothing to do with the discussion because it all comes down to the means of production. Utopian capitalist and communist states as suggested by BossPerson would both pretty much abolish all kind of government as we know it. In a utopian capitalist state, the means of production would be in private hands and, ideally, private companies would take care of everything that the government does now, including, the police and armed forces. In a utopian communist state, the means of production would be owned by those who work there and the government would be unnecessary because each community would resolve all their issues through some form of popular assemblies.

LordQuorthon

That sounds like anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, respectively. The only one that sounds utopian is the former.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Pure capitalismcoolbeans90

[QUOTE="Nonstop-Madness"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Not at all. China's economy is no where near free market. You can not even categorize them as being the same economic system.

Vuurk

But you condemn communism very easily judging failed implementations of it :| Why would you be given a free pass and others can't judge capitalism by its failed implementations too?

That sounds like anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, respectively. The only one that sounds utopian is the former.

ghoklebutter

The phase where the State controls the means of productions is not communism, it's socialism. What some people tend to call socialism is basically welfare-state types of governments.

Communism, the utopian one as written in paper, is, indeed, very close to anarchy.

I am kind of stomped by how anyone in this thread can even have the balls to attempt to portray Capitalism as any kind of set ideology like Communism is?

There is no agreed upon basis of what Capiltalism is, there simply is no consesus on what Capitalism is as a socialideology, and it serves mostly to explain an economic system (economic ideology).

I assume TC ment Liberalism? Seems most people tend to confuse the two, an aweful lot (just about as much as socialism and Communism)

In that case, I would take Communism anyday of the week.

Altho in truth, noone would ever want to be nowhere near either of those.

Edit: Man I gotta stop writing faster then I can think, correcting spelling, and making sure to differenciate economic, and social ideology.

Pure anarchism.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] I agree. I'm saying that you can not condemn capitalism as an economic system simply because China's implementation of it is wrong. You should condemn their economic system, not capitalism itself. Vuurk

But you condemn communism very easily judging failed implementations of it :| Why would you be given a free pass and others can't judge capitalism by its failed implementations too?

I would gladly take pure communism over pure capitalism anyday, in truth though, neither system purely works in the real world. Capitalism only works with a lot of regulation, and communism has yet to work in the real world.

Hahaha, as if pure communism would ever work

Capitalism insures progress while communism stagnates. I choose pure capitalism or any form of capitalism over pure communism any day.